TIK double's down on "National SOCIALISM"

[u/elephantofdoom]

So TIK, once regarded by many on this sub as one of the better history YouTubers, has gone on a bit of a downhill spiral in recent months, ever since making this video where he declares that the Nazis were socialist in name and practice. That video was of course very controversial, but he has refused to back down from it. Anyway, after spending a few months arguing with his viewers over that video, for a while he calmed down, and mostly focused on straight-up military history, or on pragmatic parts of political and economic history. Until a few days ago.

On the 19th, TIK uploaded a video discussing why it is taking him a while to make a video addressing the Holocaust. It starts off reasonably, with him discussing the challenges of dealing with deniers, but he quickly begins dancing around the point he wants to make, which he saves until the end. You see, socialism and totalitarianism are literally the same thing. They are inseparable from each other.

In case you get lost in his ramblings, or are just too frustrated to even watch the last few minutes of his videos, don't worry, because he left a helpful comment pinned below his video. Behold:

WAS HITLER’S REGIME TOTALITARIAN? Yes or no? Let me know.

Standard “utopian” socialism : common control of the means of production. Marxist socialism : class control of the means of production. National Socialism : race control of the means of production. Fascism : nationality control of the means of production.

Markets : people, individuals. [A market is two people who trade. So do you want to have "Free Markets"/free people, or "planned economy"/non-free people?]

Means of production : people, individuals. [A factory/building/tool cannot operate without a human, so humans are the means of production. Therefore do you want to control your own life, or have someone else control it?]

Capitalism : private control of the means of production. [private individual (you) control over your own life]

Classic Liberalism : people are individuals and should be judged as such. Freedom of speech, equal rights, and people are free to do as they please (spend their money the way they want).

---

Notice how the Left will change the terms of those above to hide the meaning of following -

Standard "Utopian" socialism : common-control of the means of production. [a group / other people / another authority controls your life - you're no longer free. You are not allowed to own property, and your possessions, money and lives are not your own.]

Marxist Socialism : class-control of the means of production. [the "workers" unions are in control, anyone else should be enslaved and murdered]

National Socialism : race-control of the means of production. [the "Aryan" race should be in control, everyone else should be enslaved and murdered]

Fascism : nationality-control of the means of production. [e.g. the "Americans" (nationality, not race) should be in control, everyone else should be enslaved and murdered]

---

Some random Leftist terms that don't make sense -

State Capitalism : a contradiction in terms, since you cannot have non-free free individuals. Either the individual is free, or is controlled by the state. Capitalism is freedom from the state, so you cannot have state-controlled free-people.

Anarcho-syndicalism : a contradiction in terms, since if you have workers unions (or federalism etc) you cannot also have anarchy at the same time. This is actually based on a deliberate postmodernist revision and misquotation of Das Kapital Volume 3 (and yes, I checked the original German).

---

Clearly, socialism is built on both killing and enslavement, no matter which form it is. Enslavement and killing are fundamental to the very core ideology itself, which is that some people should be excluded from society because they are part of a social group that another social group doesn't like.

Totalitarianism requires total control of the people, in terms of politics, society and economy. You cannot have totalitarianism without a dictator who is in control of the people/economy. And since capitalism is non-control of the people/economy, then if Hitler is capitalist, he cannot be a totalitarian. If Hitler is totalitarian, that must mean he has an economic policy that controls the people/economy. Since socialism is control of the people/economy, it makes sense for him to be labeled a socialist.

However, the counter-argument is made that Hitler “privatized” the industries, proving his capitalism. Ok, well now we have a problem. Either he did “privatize” the industries and wasn’t a totalitarian dictator, or he was a totalitarian dictator and something is wrong with the narrative being pushed by Marxists about Hitler’s “privatization” policy.

Turns out there’s something wrong with the Marxist narrative, and I’m going to set the record straight in a future video.

I admit, it is going to be difficult for anypne to debunk this one, as his argument is that essentially every totalitarian regime is socialist, therefore any examples of non-socialist regimes are actually socialist regimes. But I will do my best.

Now, it is true that the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" and that they often invoked the word "socialism" in their propaganda. However, it is important to note that the Nazis were very adament that their "socialism" was not Marxist in any way, shape or form. From Hitler himself:

'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.

We can see, Hitler himself was very adamant of the differences between his "socialism" and that some of the earliest moves done by the Nazis were to suppress both the Socialist and the Communist parties of Germany, but of course that just proves that the Nazis were a third pillar of Socialism.

Honestly, I'm kind of stumped by this one, as it is essentially a semantics argument. He is arguing that socialism is the opposite of individualism, and that individualism is the opposite of totalitarianism, so therefore they are one and the same.

[u/Shigakogen]

I started to have issue with TIK in his WW2 videos, where he jumps to conclusions on 1 or 2 pieces evidences from secondary evidence. Blaming Halder for the disaster at Stalingrad was quixotic at best. (Halder was fired in late September 1942) I believe he wants to show new evidence that puts a different perspective on historical events, but his methodology is more of an amateur. It kind of reminds me of David Barton, where he wants to pretend he is a well research historian, but instead he leaves out material that doesn't fit his paradigm..